David Archuleta's new single about he and (some in?) his family leaving the Faith

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

If "sexual identity" is a social construct, then it can be deconstructed. 

Intellectually, academically, sure.

And the label can be fully rejected by an individual.

otoh….

Can the predispositions towards certain behaviours that the person has grouped under the label be deconstructed or removed?

Are the attractions there because of the label in your view or the label is chosen because of the attractions?  If the latter, what effect on those preexisting attractions would deconstructing the construct have?

Edited April 2 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

My focus has been about the concept of "sexual identity," not "sexual attraction."  The difference, for me, is that the former purports to be what the person is, whereas the latter is what the person experiences/feels.  

And how does this affect how the person experiences the Law of Chastity?  Or whatever you see the significance of?

———

What is interesting to me is of all the posters currently on the board there are two who promote the idea of sexual fluidity (klindley and Hamba also promoted sexual fluidity as a way of better understanding sexual behaviour, but haven’t been around lately).

You and then there is me.

I prefer not to use labels that create a picture of what a person is because individuals are individuals and labels lead to inaccurate assumptions, stereotyping, etc.  I prefer to identify individual behaviours and behaviours associated with them.

I am fully supportive of the Law of Chastity as it now stands….though I think there are major gaps of understanding associated with it and therefore I wait for further revelation to increase our knowledge on the whys it is what it is.

And yet my posts aren’t getting major blowback and yours are.  Mine are seen if I understand correctly as more inclusive.

Which makes me think it is not the idea of sexual fluidity or even the Law of Chastity that is the issue here, but how they are being used.

For me sexual fluidity is more an interesting side issue as it possibly informs on how people work, so to speak.  Maybe how people play is a better phrase (play is deeply serious, very important and should be highly valued in my book).  But using it as a justification to tell gays or anyone they should or even could be living the Law of Chastity is misunderstanding what sexual fluidity is and is imo, as inaccurate in describing the human experience as is using “born that way” as justification for saying one can’t live the Law of Chastity.

For me this is similar to justifying plural marriage with anything besides they participated in plural marriage because they believed they were commanded by God to do so.  Any fact, accurate or not, like ‘less faithful men than faithful women’ or ‘it helped spread wealth around as immigrant women chose to plurally marry’ is irrelevant to the why the individuals as a group chose to live that life.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Interesting. When you mentioned that trying to focus on putting all your focus on women was a failure, I wondered if it would also be a failure to put all your focus on men in light of the fact that you are bisexual.

My son is with a pansexual. I wondered if he was with somebody who was not capable of monogamy because literally every gender and sexual orientation would be attractive. But I have since learned that of course, anybody can be monogamous, especially when they wholeheartedly drawn to their partner. 
 

But when you mentioned your difficulty, I questioned that again? I guess in reality, it really doesn’t matter, it’s not my business (my sons choice) - actually I prefer it that way lol

 

separate issue, I follow a therapist on social media, who explains that there are many cis gendered, heterosexual men who choose to have homosexual experiences. This is considered more of a fetish I suppose? Perhaps the illicit secrecy around it, and the tabooness Is the draw.

There is so much that I do not know, and do not understand. The older I get…

I could do monogamy. It is a choice. Whether I would continue to choose to is the question. Basically whether I can add partnersexual to my identity. LOL

I have only anecdotal experience but my experience is that bi/pan people cheat at roughly the same rate as all other orientations. Too much but too much at the same rate.

Edited April 2 by The Nehor

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here you go.  See also here.

You are issuing a CFR for what "I think"?  Really?

Okay.  I, Spencer Macdonald, think that more and more people are coming around and recognizing that "sexual identity" is a social construct, that it is recent, and that it only has purchase in some Western countries (and is far from universally accepted).  I think this concept is becoming more and more tenuous in the eyes of the average joe and more and more "sexual identities" are presented to us.

For example, I recently came across the term "ecosexual."  See, e.g., here:

And here:

The list of "sexual identities" is, it seems, endless.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

And here:

Here is a list compiled by the government (!) of New Zealand:

"Ecosexual" is notably absent from the foregoing list.  Just a matter of time, I suppose.

Also notable was this story about the foregoing list:

Awkward.

See also here:

And on and on and on.

Is "Grey asexual" on equal footing with "homosexual" in terms of being a "sexual identity"?  Why or why not?

How about "ecosexual"?

How about "Sapiosexual"?

Back in 2021, Hamba made the following comment:

And here (referencing this 2017 BBC article) :

"{A}nything that’s been constructed can be deconstructed, as well. If heterosexuality didn’t exist in the past, then it doesn’t need to exist in the future."

"{W}hy might we be uncomfortable with challenging the belief that homosexuality, and by extension heterosexuality, are eternal truths of nature?"

"The line between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn’t just blurry, as some take Kinsey’s research to imply – it’s an invention, a myth, and an outdated one."

I think these questions and statements about "sexual identity" are increasing.

"Heterosexuality, argues Katz, 'is invented within discourse as that which is outside discourse. It’s manufactured in a particular discourse as that which is universal… as that which is outside time.'"

The same can be said for the concept of "homosexuality" and every other "sexual identity."  "{A}nything that’s been constructed can be deconstructed."  If this deconstruction happens, I doubt it will be based on some sort of organized effort, as the concept has, for some years now, been fraying at the edges and will likely come apart at the seams.  We've already seen some indications of this, and it's not like it hasn't been anticipated.  See, e.g., this 1995 (!) article: Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma

From the abstract:

• "The challenge of queer theory and politics {} is primarily in its disruption of sex and gender identity boundaries and deconstruction of identity categories."
• "The debates (over the use of the term 'queer' and over bisexual and transgender inclusion) raise questions not only about the content of sexuality-based political identities, but over their viability and usefulness."
• "While recent social movement theory has paid attention to the creation and negotiation of collective identity, it has not paid sufficient attention to the simultaneous impulse to destabilize identities from within."

Yep.  

From the body of the article:

"{T}wo different forms of organizing, can be seen facing off. The logic and political utility of deconstructing collective categories vie with that of shoring them up; each logic is true, and neither is fully tenable."

As I understand it, "lesbians and gay men" came together to build "a quasi ethnicity" because doing so was politically necessary.  As an "ethnic/essentialist politic," this movement required "clear categories of collective identity are necessary for successful resistance and political gain."  That is, the community must have a "minority status and minority rights" based on something akin to an ethnicity.  Here, that common trait is, ostensibly, "the same fixed, natural essence, a self with same-sex desires."

Okay.  So far, so good.

However, can the notion of "sexual identity" hold itself together as a system of "clear categories of collective identity"?  It seems . . . not, as evidenced by the proliferation of "sexual identities," including - but clearly not limited to - some of the lists provided above.  The "lesbians" and "gays" have not been able to close the door behind them.  First came the "B" ("bisexual"), then the "T" ("trans").  And then, later on, "Q" and "I" and "A" and "+" and "++" were added.  And the list, it seems, will never end.  See, e.g., this November 2023 article:

"{T}here are tons of other identities that don’t fit into this acronym (or this article), but are still completely valid."

So much for "clear categories of collective identity."  The 1995 article saw this coming:

It is interesting to see what has played out since 1995.  This next excerpt pertains to the then-somewhat-recent inclusion of the "B" and "T":

"{T}t matters what we are called and what we call ourselves."  Hence the endlessly-expanding "LGBTQIA++" acronym.

The article goes on to describe then-contemporary debates about the inclusion of bisexual and transgender people in the "community":

Lesbians being accused of having "biphobic attitudes" and being "bigot{s}" for not wanting biological males "where they are not wanted and trying to destroy lesbian gatherings."

"Many arguing for exclusion {of bisexual/transgender people from the gay/lesbian community/movement} write like a besieged border patrol."  This is an apt metaphor, I think, because "sexual identity" is not a coherent "border."   Again, look at the endless proliferation of the acronym.  "Sexual identity," I think, fails to coherently create "clear categories of collective identity."  Or as the article put it: "{S}exual and gender identities are not the solid political ground they have been thought to be."  And this was in 1995. 

Anyhoo, the thesis that "sexual identity" is a "social construct," and historically speaking, a very new construct.  It has achieved near-hegemonic notoriety in many Western societies.  As Hamba put it, this construct "spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility."  As a social construct, it can be deconstructed, or set aside by the individual, or subordinated.  Again, Hamba has correctly noted that "the Church has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities," and that "{c}onsequently, whilst the Church recognises the reality of same-sex behaviour (and even same-sex attraction, though one could reasonably argue that this is itself a modern construct, arising from the suggestive influence of the normalisation of homosexuality as an identity), the Church has maintained the sharp distinction between behaviour and identity."

I therefore submit that it is possible, even desirable, for Latter-day Saints who are sexually attracted to those of their own sex to choose to set aside for themselves notions of "sexual identity," or else subordinate that identity, and choose to prioritize love of (and, therefore, obedience to) God in relation to their sexual behavior.

I understand that this is not a popular position.  I'm okay with that.  Again from Hamba:

More to the point, I think "{t}he Church's position" in teaching the Law of Chastity is congruent with God's will.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the sources. So I am still not really clear on your position on human sexuality. Do you think we are born with our sexual preferences or do we choose them?  I understand fluidity and that people can land on the spectrum.  But it does not seem to me that we choose them.  We can choose to ignore them. We can choose to suppress them. But if I were told I had to marry a man I would be hard pressed to make that work.  So whether there is sexual identity that is a real thing, and whether or not this is a social construct it seems to me that the overriding issue about is you believe what is called the law of chastity as defined by Mormonism, needs to be followed no matter what. All other sexual choices as well as romantic affection should meet this rule or law. Do I have it  correct?

By the way the CFR was to a comment that you think that the trend is falling into your theories on sexual identity. When you say you think most, or more, are thinking along these lines the  CFR is to provide other sources that confirm your thinking.

Edited April 2 by Teancum

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m guessing you’re unaware of the fact that the church has lauded the reformers as heroes of faith for many years, and that great and courageous men of faith unconquerable, like William Tyndall, laid the necessary groundwork for the successful restoration of the gospel and the reestablishment kingdom of God? In fact, for many years the church has called this great period of preparation for the restoration of the gospel “The Great Prologue.” . And if this weren’t enough, the Book of Mormon testifies that there were many brave and inspired men and women of God who played additional indispensable rolls in making the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ possible, and to this end the Lord strengthened and inspired them with his spirit . I presume it’s been a while since you’ve read and retained in memory the following verses from the Book of Mormon that testify there were many who were spiritually inspired and blessed of God prior to the birth of the Prophet Joseph Smith? It’s no accident that all of these great spiritual forerunners believed in Jesus Christ

Mormonism is such a funny thing.  Everything is about  Mormonism. Reformation, founding of America, new technology.  All for the grand "restored gospel"  It one of the most egocentric religions in the world.  And it really is simply pretty insignificant on the world stage. Now and historically.

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Mormonism is such a funny thing.  Everything is about  Mormonism. Reformation, founding of America, new technology.  All for the grand "restored gospel"  It one of the most egocentric religions in the world.  And it really is simply pretty insignificant on the world stage. Now and historically.

"I have told you the truth, and whether you are in hell or in heaven you shall know that "Mormonism" is true, and what I and my brethren have told you this day is the Gospel of salvation." (Heber C. Kimball, JD 1:5)

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"I have told you the truth, and whether you are in hell or in heaven you shall know that "Mormonism" is true, and what I and my brethren have told you this day is the Gospel of salvation." (Heber C. Kimball, JD 1:5)

Pure fantasy.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Intellectually, academically, sure.

And the label can be fully rejected by an individual.

Labels, identities, etc. can matter quite a bit.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

otoh….

Can the predispositions towards certain behaviours that the person has grouped under the label be deconstructed or removed?

Most folks report that they cannot.  Some few seem to be able to manage it.

However, if sexual attraction is viewed as a "predisposition towards certain behaviors" (rather than as an "identity"), then perhaps this conceptualization can help the individual choose to control and keep that attraction within the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  Still a difficult effort, to be sure, but I think setting aside or subordinating "sexual identity" can make it more tractable.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Are the attractions there because of the label in your view or the label is chosen because of the attractions?

The "label" or "identity" seems to be a very recent innovation (coined in the latter half of the 19th century, and gaining sociocultural, legal and political ascendancy in the latter half of the 20th century). 

On the other hand, the "attractions" have existed for time out of mind.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

If the latter, what effect on those preexisting attractions would deconstructing the construct have?

I addressed that previously here:

Quote

The "identity" paradigm also works well in the Latter-day Saint paradigm because it creates a potent alternative view of sexuality relative to the Law of Chastity.  There is often tension between an individual's sexual desires and external constraints on those desires (such as, for example, the Law of Chastity).  The individual can choose to release that tension by elevating those sexual desires to an "identity," and then letting that identity replace the Law of Chastity as the arbiter of sexual boundaries.

Conversely, setting aside the label/identity, or subordinating it, allows the individual to keep the Law of Chastity in its place as the arbiter of sexual boundaries.

Viewing sexual attraction as something one experiences is, I think, both intellectually and spiritually distinguishable from viewing it as something one is.  The former facilitates volition, whereas the latter tends to stymie it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 2 by smac97

[ZealouslyStriving]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Pure fantasy.

"It is no joke or fantasy, no matter of mere enthusiasm, to rise in one's mind for a few days, weeks or months and then dissipate away into thin air; but it is our high duty and privilege, as long as we live, to bear off these principles that have been revealed, and to sustain and uphold the institutions of heaven, and that authority through and by which the mind and will of God our Father are made known unto us upon the earth." (Daniel H. Wells, JD 17:45)

[teddyaware]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Pure fantasy.

Why are you so enamored and transfixed by a delusion that it causes you to waste an inordinate amount of your precious time on earth obsessively engaged in rhetorical combat on an obscure discussion board dedicated to in-depth about discussions about a system of beliefs that you think is easily dismissed as pure fantasy? Your unquenchable zeal brings to mind sagacious observations about telltale human behaviors such as protesting too much and whistling past the graveyard. 

Edited April 2 by teddyaware

[pogi]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Intellectually, academically, sure.

And the label can be fully rejected by an individual.

otoh….

Can the predispositions towards certain behaviours that the person has grouped under the label be deconstructed or removed?

Are the attractions there because of the label in your view or the label is chosen because of the attractions?  If the latter, what effect on those preexisting attractions would deconstructing the construct have?

Your last question is a good one.  We can look to history for answers.  I pointed out previously that in societies where the social construct of sexual identity didn't exist (Romans, Greeks, etc.), the predisposition towards those behaviors being discussed still existed.  In fact, it probably flourished more than it does now.    So, I don't think Smac has much to stand on.  The meta analysis I linked to previously shows that there is no evidence that shows sexual identity (vs sexual attraction) conversion really works to change behavior.   Smac doesn't have anything to stand on here other than wishful thinking.  Unfortunately, such bias against gay identities causes more shame and harm than good.  I wish he would just stop. 

Edited April 2 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

However, if sexual attraction is viewed as a "predisposition towards certain behaviors" (rather than as an "identity"), then the individual ends up with desires and appetites which he can choose to control and keep within the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  Still difficult, to be sure, but I think more tractable.

What you seem to be suggesting is that if a person adopts a homosexual identity, then they will "end up with desires and appetites which he can can't choose to control and keep within the parameters of the Law of Chastity."  

If this is not true for those who identify as heterosexual, why would it be true for homosexuals or others? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The "label" or "identity" seems to be a very recent innovation (coined in the latter half of the 19th century, and gaining sociocultural, legal and political ascendancy in the latter half of the 20th century). 

On the other hand, the "attractions" have existed for time out of mind.

Right, so do you have evidence that the recent "label" or "identity" has made those behaviors more prevalent or uncontrollable?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Conversely, setting aside the label/identity, or subordinating it, allows the individual to keep the Law of Chastity in its place as the arbiter of sexual boundaries.

My neighbor identifies as gay and is a temple recommend holder.  Are you honestly suggesting that identifying as gay dis-"allows the individual" from keeping the Law of Chastity?  If a heterosexual person can control themselves despite their sexual identity, again, why not a gay person? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Viewing sexual attraction as something one experiences is, I think, both intellectually and spiritually distinguishable from viewing it as something one is.  The former facilitates volition, whereas the latter tends to stymie it.

The way someone chooses to identify doesn't stymie volition.  You have no evidence for this.  CFR if you do.   The identity doesn't require one to be sexually active or to violate the law of chastity in anyway.  It is more about identifying their attraction rather than anything else.  For example, I identified as a heterosexual long before I was ever sexually active.  Celibate people general usually identify as homosexual or heterosexual, it says nothing of their ability to obey the law of chastity.  

 

Edited April 2 by pogi

[smac97]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is not. It is an area on the asexual spectrum. One can be homosexual and graysexual. The best comparison is they are on different axes of the sexuality spectrum.

So "sexual identity" is nothing but an endless differences of degree, not kind? 

A "sexuality spectrum" is, I think, inimical to the legal and political arguments that have been advanced for so many years.  From the 1995 article: "The ultimate challenge of queerness, however, is not just the questioning of the content of collective identities, but the questioning of the unity, stability, viability, and political utility of sexual identities - even as they are used and assumed."

Are you familiar with the phrase "discrete and insular minority"?

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

How about "ecosexual"?

A kink or a fetish depending on how intense it is.

How do you differentiate between a "sexual identity" and a "kink" or "fetish"?  How did you arrive at this distinction?  What is to stop anyone else from likewise framing this or that sexual identity as "a kink or fetish"?

See, e.g., here:

Quote

Is kink a sexual orientation? The answer is obviously. What is orientation except the direction in which one is oriented? I don't understand why Keenan has chosen this term to begin her inquiry. It seems to me that her real question is Is kink a sexuality? In other words, should kink be given the same status in our culture as homosexuality and heterosexuality – a status now in some ways protected by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges?

Keenan cites Dan Savage as one person who mostly disagrees with the idea that kink might be a sexuality. She quotes him as saying, "While some kinksters identify strongly with their kinks and are open about their sexual interests, being into baby bonnets or bondage isn't about who you love, it's about how you love."

I find this line of reasoning completely incoherent. Frankly, I do not define sexuality as having any relationship to love. Let me make a change that I hope will be helping Savage out: If we rephrase him so that he's saying "{kink} isn't about who you f^&%, it's about how you f^&%", then we get closer to the heart of the matter, and we get to the stakes of this question that is, in fact, central to mainstream LGBT politics.

The LGBT movement has carved itself a niche whereby it claims ownership of something called "sexuality", and this movement claims that a person's sexuality is only a small part of who one is. (Sometimes this part is considered the most important component of who someone is – as when they call on an actor to come out of the closet – and sometimes this part is referred to as an almost totally inconsequential attribute – as when they say that someone, usually an athlete, "just happens to be gay".) In any case, for the mainstream LGBT movement, sexuality (homo or hetero) is something essential, unchanging, and biologically given; it is also something that is deeply oneself, in many cases explaining the self.

And no matter how many people stand up and say "no that isn't how sexual desire works for me", no matter how many people say they have chosen their homosexuality, no matter how many people identify as bisexual or pansexual or asexual, no matter that historians have shown that across time sexualities have differed widely, and no matter how many straight people have occasional sex with same-gender partners, the LGBT movement tells us: no, actually, we are all born this way. And you are either born this way or born that way.

In other words, the movement has opted for this unchanging, biologically given version of sexuality instead of one more closely linked to reality. 

Of course, this individual's say-so is no more authoritative than yours.

This rather typifies the fundamental flaw in the concept of sexual identity.  I don't think there is any mechanism for gatekeeping or boundary maintenance.  It is endlessly malleable.  It means whatever the individual wants it to mean.

Alternatively, if sexual attraction is not viewed as an identity, but as, well, an attraction (or "proclivity," or perhaps even "orientation"), then the endless array of manifestations make a lot more sense.  However, I think this conceptualization has far less political utility.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

How about "Sapiosexual"?

An insufferable designation most roll their eyes at.

Your disparagement seems arbitrary.  

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is a preference, not a sexuality.

Wasn't same-sex attraction similarly disparaged in years past?

The "L" and the "G" and the "B" have all achieved sociocultural hegemony by overcoming assertions that they are "a preference, not a sexuality."  They did so by seeking status as an "identity."  The "T"'s progress toward "identity" and sociocultural hegemony has been substantial, but very uneven, and is even facing some substantial reversals and setbacks.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It would be like saying being attracted to people with blond hair is a sexuality.

So a sexual attraction only qualifies as an "identity" if it pertains to a broad, rather than narrow, category of attraction(s)?

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You can’t stop can you? Is this a kink or a fetish?

Not everyone views the world through a sexualized lens.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Wishful thinking. Good luck with that.

I think this merits discussion.  The notion of "sexual identity" being unstable, about it being untenable in the long term, about its usage carrying the seeds of its own deconstruction.

I also think the Church's position is, in increasing measures, being proven to be reasoned and accurate, and substantially more coherent than alternative perspectives.  

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also the idea that lesbians and gays want to close the door behind them is silly. Also the myth of the community endlessly adding more letters is mostly a myth that our enemies tell themselves because it keep them warm at night or something.

From GoodRx.com: What Does the Full LGBTQIA+ Acronym Stand For?

Quote

Key takeaways:

• LGBT and LGBTQIA+ are acronyms used to describe the community of people who don’t identify as heterosexual, straight, or cisgender. 
• As the world gains a better understanding of people’s different sexual orientations and gender identities, the words and letters that we use to describe the community will continue to evolve.
• Using appropriate terminology and naming is important in ensuring accurate and inclusive representation of people’s diverse identities.

"{T}he words and letters that we use to describe the community will continue to evolve."

Quote

The LGBTQIA+ acronym is used to describe either a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Sexual orientation refers to a person’s physical, emotional, and romantic attraction to another person — such as being straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Gender identity describes a person’s internal sense of being female, male, or someone outside of that gender binary. 

It’s important to note that gender identity is not determined by one’s sex assigned at birth and that sex and gender are not the same.

As the world becomes more inclusive of people’s sexual orientation and gender identity, the letters within the LGBTQIA+ acronym have similarly evolved. Read on to discover the history behind this colorful acronym.

"{T}he letters within the LGBTQIA+ acronym have similarly evolved."

Quote

Why was ‘LGBT’ incomplete?

Although the LGBT acronym was much more inclusive than terms used in the past, it still left out people who don’t identify with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. And that’s where the “Q” came in.

“Q” stands for Queer: an adjective used by some people whose sexual orientation is not exclusively heterosexual or straight. It’s an umbrella term that includes people who have non-binary or gender-fluid identities. 
...
“Q” can also stand for Questioning: When “Q” comes at the end of LGBTQ, it can also mean questioning. Questioning is a term used to describe a person who is exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

How has LGBT changed to LGBTQIA+ over the years?

History has shown that LGBT continues to be an evolving abbreviation as the world gains a better understanding of people’s sexual orientation, identity, gender, and expression. LGBTQIA+ has become a prevalent acronym adopted by the community. Let’s discuss what these additional letters mean. 

“I” stands for intersex: a term used to describe a person who is born with differences in their sex traits or reproductive anatomy that don’t fit typical definitions of female or male. There may be differences in regards to genitalia, chromosomes, hormones, internal sex organs, and/or secondary sex characteristics (e.g., pubic hair, breasts, facial hair, etc.).

“A” stands for asexual: a term used to describe a person who lacks sexual attraction or desire for other people. It’s different from celibacy, in which people make a choice to abstain from sexual activity.

“+” stands for plus: The “+” sign is a symbol that represents members of the community who identify with a sexual orientation or gender identity that isn’t included within the LGBTQIA acronym. It’s an inclusive way of representing gender and sexual identities that letters and words cannot yet fully describe.

"The '+' sign is a symbol that represents members of the community who identify with a sexual orientation or gender identity that isn’t included within the LGBTQIA acronym. It’s an inclusive way of representing gender and sexual identities that letters and words cannot yet fully describe."

Quote

How will the LGBTQ acronym continue to evolve?

Although the LGBTQ acronym has been adopted by both the HRC and GLAAD, some people may say that it doesn’t fully represent the entire community. 

As society continues making progress in improving inclusivity within the LGBTQIA+ community, our understanding of different sexual orientations and gender identities will continue expanding. The goal is to continue fostering an inclusive and welcoming community where everyone feels appropriately represented.

"{S}ome people may say that it {the acronym} doesn’t fully represent the entire community."

"As society continues making progress in improving inclusivity within the LGBTQIA+ community, our understanding of different sexual orientations and gender identities will continue expanding."

Quote

Understanding LGBTQ2S+ and other expanded acronyms

Since there are so many different identities, it’s difficult to fully capture everyone’s sexual orientation and gender. The acronym has continued to change over the years and now includes the following:

LGBTQ2S+

This expanded acronym stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and two-spirit. 

“2S” stands for two-spirit: a term that traditionally originated from Native American culture that describes people who are male, female, or intersex and have both a male and female spirit within them. It’s sometimes referred to as a third gender.

LGBTQQIP2SAA

The term stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirit, asexual, and ally.

“P” stands for pansexual: A term that describes a person who may have a physical, emotional, or romantic attraction to people of any gender. They may not experience these feelings at the same time or in the same way or level. 

The second “A” stands for ally: A term that describes a person who actively supports the LGBTQ community. It includes people who are straight or cisgender (a term used to describe a person whose gender identity aligns with their sex assigned at birth) and those within the LGBTQ community.

"Since there are so many different identities, it’s difficult to fully capture everyone’s sexual orientation and gender. The acronym has continued to change over the years."

And so on.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In general we welcome the people within the new letters. They were already affiliated with us. In general most still use LGBT or LGBTQ with the Q including all queer people.

So is there a finite or infinite set of sexual identities?

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, and things have changed since 1995. The local gay male dungeon space in my area used to be an exclusively gay cismale gathering. Now it welcomes bisexual and transgender men. We are getting more inclusive. Appealing to our divisions from 30 years ago that have lessened is not proof of imminent collapse you silly silly man.

I don't think you are understanding my position.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I showed you specifically that sexual identities have existed in different forms throughout history. You declined to contest the point. You are at the point where you are just lying now.

I don't know what you are referencing here. 

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I therefore submit that it is possible, even desirable, for Latter-day Saints who are sexually attracted to those of their own sex to choose to set aside for themselves notions of "sexual identity," or else subordinate that identity, and choose to prioritize love of (and, therefore, obedience to) God in relation to their sexual behavior.

Your premises don’t support this conclusion.

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

All you have is that sexual identities are transitory (you hope).

Not really.  Whether "sexual identity" continues to exist in the sociocultural and political sphere is not the point.  

My point is that the individual can choose to set aside the notion of "sexual identity," or else subordinate it.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You won’t confront the reality behind them. Instead you just blather on about things you don’t understand and show no desire to learn about.

It is an incoherent position.

Have you considered getting help for this addiction?

You seldom have anything substantive to say.  Just taunts, insults, provocations, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Mormonism is such a funny thing.  Everything is about  Mormonism. Reformation, founding of America, new technology.  All for the grand "restored gospel"  It one of the most egocentric religions in the world.  And it really is simply pretty insignificant on the world stage. Now and historically.

Haters gonna hate.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

What you seem to be suggesting is that if a person adopts a homosexual sexual identity, then they will "end up with desires and appetites which he can can't choose to control and keep within the parameters of the Law of Chastity."  

Not quite.  I think adopting the "identity" can make accepting and keeping the Law of Chastity more difficult, whereas setting it aside or subordinating it makes keeping the Law of Chastity more reasoned and tractable.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

If this is not true for those who identify as heterosexual, why would it be true for homosexuals or others?

I think some heterosexuals also have difficulty in constraining their behaviors to the parameters of the Law of Chastity.

As I noted previously: "I have never thought of myself as having a 'sexual identity.'"  I think this is true for most of humanity, since "sexual identity" is a very new concept that has only achieved sociocultural ascendancy in the very recent past.  I think most people view sexual attraction as something one experiences, not something one is.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

The "label" or "identity" seems to be a very recent innovation (coined in the latter half of the 19th century, and gaining sociocultural, legal and political ascendancy in the latter half of the 20th century). 

On the other hand, the "attractions" have existed for time out of mind.

Right, so do you have evidence that the recent "label" or "identity" has made those behaviors more prevalent or uncontrollable?

I don't think I have claimed this.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Conversely, setting aside the label/identity, or subordinating it, allows the individual to keep the Law of Chastity in its place as the arbiter of sexual boundaries.

My neighbor identifies as gay and is a temple recommend holder. 

Okay.  I have a friend who is likewise situated.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you honestly suggesting that identifying as gay dis-"allows the individual" from keeping the Law of Chastity? 

No.  "Conversely, setting aside the label/identity, or subordinating it, allows the individual to keep the Law of Chastity in its place as the arbiter of sexual boundaries."

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

If a heterosexual person can control themselves despite their sexual identity, again, why not a gay person? 

I agree with you.  "Despite their sexual identity" seems to be pretty much synonymous with "subordinating" it.

There are some folks who seem to feel torn between being true to one "identity" (Latter-day Saint, disciple of Jesus Christ, child of God) or another ("I identify as a gay person," "I am heterosexual").  Generally, the disparity between the two is behavior.  For those Latter-day Saints who feel this tension, setting aside the "identity," or subordinating it, may help alleviate or mitigate it.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

The way someone chooses to identify doesn't stymie volition.  You have no evidence for this.  CFR if you do.

I said: "Viewing sexual attraction as something one experiences is, I think, both intellectually and spiritually distinguishable from viewing it as something one is.  The former facilitates volition, whereas the latter tends to stymie it."

"Tends to stymie it."

I am speaking from anecdotal observation and experience, and I am not speaking in absolutes.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

The identity doesn't require one to be sexually active or to violate the law of chastity in anyway. 

I agree that the identity doesn't require one to be sexually active or to violate the Law of Chastity.  I did not suggest otherwise.  But there sure seem to be a lot of narratives about a Latter-day Saint (often former or lapsed) prioritizing participation in same-sex behavior over keeping the Law of Chastity.  Embracing the "identity" sure seems to be a commonly integral element of that narrative progression.  To wit: David Archuleta.  He has abandoned one identity (an active and faithful Latter-day Saint) to pursue another "sexual" one.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is more about identifying their attraction rather than anything else. 

Respectfully, I think the identity is often about identifying and acting on the attraction.  The Church is regularly raked across the coals for differentiating between the "attraction" and acting on it.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

For example, I identified as a heterosexual long before I was ever sexually active. 

Sexual attraction was never something I viewed as what I was, but rather what I felt and experienced.

The concept of "sexual identity" is a very new thing.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Celibate people general usually identify as homosexual or heterosexual, it says nothing of their ability to obey the law of chastity.  

When a Latter-day Saint who is sexually attracted to his own sex is grappling with what to do with those proclivities, it is not uncommon to, at some point, embrace the "sexual identity," announce and proclaim it, seek validation and endorsement from others for it, begin to act in ways congruent with it, and either gradually or abruptly set aside or subordinate the conflicting identity (that of being a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint).  David Archuleta is a recent example of this progression.

Alternatively, a Latter-day Saint can choose to not embrace the sexual identity, or else choose to subordinate it, and to continue to keep the Law of Chastity to the best of his ability, and to otherwise continue in discipleship, keeping covenants, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Your last question is a good one.  We can look to history for answers.  I pointed out previously that in societies where the social construct of sexual identity didn't exist (Romans, Greeks, etc.), the predisposition towards those behaviors being discussed still existed.  In fact, it probably flourished more than it does now.    So, I don't think Smac has much to stand on. 

If you can show me the word that "Romans, Greeks, etc." had to describe the "sexual identities" we now call gay, lesbian, etc., please do so.

I don't think you will be able to do that.  Until the innovation of "sexual identity" came along 100+ years ago, societies did not conceptualize "the predisposition towards those behaviors" as an "identity."  And outside of the West, much of the world still does not.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The meta analysis I linked to previously shows that there is no evidence that shows sexual identity (vs sexual attraction) conversion really works to change behavior.   

I have said nothing about conversion therapy, nor have I endorsed it, nor do I now endorse it.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Smac doesn't have anything to stand on here other than wishful thinking.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Unfortunately, such bias against gay identities causes more shame and harm than good.  I wish he would just stop. 

Unfortunately, discussions about homosexuality often end up defaulting to rote accusations of bigotry.  I wish that would stop.  I think reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

understand fluidity and that people can land on the spectrum.  But it does not seem to me that we choose them.  We can choose to ignore them. We can choose to suppress them.

This is the typical position I have seen over the years.  Just as we don’t choose what language we pick up as a kid, we do not choose our attractions or unattractions….though it is not as easily seen what and why and how we form them for many people while it is obvious why we pick up a language (the language will be all around us typically).  It would be unlikely even with partial exposure people would become fluent in a language that a few people were using in their environment while sexual attractions can have more subtle triggers, certain feelings created in a nonsexual environment could later get attached to sexual feelings because they both were triggered at the same time by something else unconnected with the original event.  Just as the drive to express oneself, to communicate leads to adoption of language that then becomes one’s natural or default way of communicating, so does the drive to express and experience sexual feelings leads to adopting some version of sexual language.

What follows is more theory than experimental data probably…..Sexual feelings, feelings of pleasure can occur at odd moments because of biology or what is going on more in one’s inner thoughts than what is going on in the environment, but awareness of the environment is also present and attachments can unexpectedly happen.  You don’t even have to be observing same sex sexual behaviour to pick it up.  More likely it is simply pleasure while being focused on someone of the same sex that starts out the process.  The pleasure may be occurring because of the person or the person may just be present in their environment without them being aware.

Same thing can happen with opposite sex attractions of course, but most people in our culture also tend to have a lot more modeling of opposite sex sexual behaviour in their environment.

One example I still remember from my clinical psych days because it was so in your face obvious was a person who had developed a fetish including doorknobs because as a young teen there was no lock on his bedroom door and his family had a habit of just walking into his room without knocking.  His ‘lock when he wanted to ensure privacy was standing at the door, holding the knob so it couldn’t turn.  
 

added:  my speculation may be way out of date as this side of things I haven’t studied for decades, so the current science may not actually back this interpretation of how sexual attachments develop, but they make sense to me in conjunction with the new science I have picked up, so I am presenting this as a possibility.

Edited April 2 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Conversely, setting aside the label/identity, or subordinating it, allows the individual to keep the Law of Chastity in its place as the arbiter of sexual boundaries.

You keep saying this, but you haven’t actually described how it functions when attractions are deeply embedded and sexual drive and the drive for companionship are strong.  It comes across as you on the bridge saying “Make it so” without a clue of what is going on in the engine room, the work the actual engineers have to do.

Edited April 2 by Calm

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"It is no joke or fantasy, no matter of mere enthusiasm, to rise in one's mind for a few days, weeks or months and then dissipate away into thin air; but it is our high duty and privilege, as long as we live, to bear off these principles that have been revealed, and to sustain and uphold the institutions of heaven, and that authority through and by which the mind and will of God our Father are made known unto us upon the earth." (Daniel H. Wells, JD 17:45)

You think that quoting prior leaders from Mormonism is going to convince me?  They are just men.  ANd like prior "prophets" they think they have God's message. They don't. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

If emotional abusive parents keep telling their kid he's a stupid piece of garbage over a over again more often than not he will adopt that identity. If I keep identifying myself as a [take your pick] I absorb and take on that identity. Point being- we don't have to identify ourselves as anything if we don't want to- we have a choice.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You think that quoting prior leaders from Mormonism is going to convince me?  They are just men.  ANd like prior "prophets" they think they have God's message. They don't. 

No. But I will continue to share truth anyways. 😸

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"I have never thought of myself as having a 'sexual identity.'" 

Do you think of yourself as attracted to women?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why are you so enamored and transfixed by a delusion

I have no delusion. You do though. I am not the one making fantastical claims you are.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

 

that it causes you to waste an inordinate amount of your precious time on earth obsessively engaged in rhetorical combat on an obscure discussion board dedicated to in-depth about discussions about a system of beliefs that you think is easily dismissed as pure fantasy?

I don't spent that much time with Mormonism.  Some here on this board. Some podcasts. But why do I still spend time with it?  Well while it is less than it used to be I am still interested in it. And some of it, and the dynamics, especially watching believers, fascinate me.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Your unquenchable zeal brings to mind sagacious observations about telltale human behaviors such as protesting too much and whistling past the graveyard. 

Do you talk like this in real life?  I know criticism from disaffected Mormons bugs you and so many other true believers. Too bad. I gave Mormonism the better part of my time, talents, money, emotions, thoughts and so on for the majority of my life. If I want to talk about it, post here, criticize that is my business. Not yours. Not anyone's. Active believers have no authority over disaffected members and how they deal with the result of realizing they had been hoodwinked.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think you will be able to do that. 

Why would he care to?  He was making the point that even without the label of identity, the predispositions existed, not the reverse.

Edited April 2 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

"I have never thought of myself as having a 'sexual identity.'" 

Do you think of yourself as attracted to women?

No.  I think of myself as attracted to a woman (my wife).  I do not view women other than my wife in romantic/sexual/sexualized terms.

Before I was married, I was attracted to some women in a romantic or potentially romantic sense, but I did not construe that attraction in sexual or sexualized terms.

Thanks,

-Smac